INNO-WANGSA OILS & FATS SDN BHD v RAKSAM INGRIDIENTS PRIVATE LIMITED

Case Significance

Instructive on the mandatory content of a record of appeal under Rule 18(4) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 and Practice Direction No. 1 of 2017, and on the limits of relief against non-compliance under Rule 3A.

This Court of Appeal decision concerns the striking out of an appeal for non-compliance with the rules governing the record of appeal. The appellant, Inno-Wangsa Oils & Fats Sdn Bhd, had commenced proceedings in the High Court at Seremban by originating summons seeking to set aside and stay the recognition and enforcement of an arbitration award and an appeal-board award made under the auspices of the Palm Oil Refiners Association of Malaysia; the respondent, Raksam Ingridients Private Limited, applied to strike out the appellant's record of appeal and notice of appeal. The respondent's complaint was that the appellant had failed to include the material and mandatory cause papers that were crucial to the appeal, contrary to Rule 18(4)(a) and (c) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 and the Court of Appeal Practice Direction No. 1 of 2017, so that the respondent was prejudiced in being unable to take further steps to respond, and that the appellant had failed to rectify the defects under Rule 5(1). The court, comprising Azmi bin Ariffin, Mohd Firuz bin Jaffril and Ong Chee Kwan JJCA, allowed the striking-out application. It held that an incomplete record of appeal, or one suffering from a fundamental defect, is a fundamental threat to the reliability of the record before the appellate court, without which the appeal is fundamentally defective, making it impossible to show where the merits and justice lie. It rejected reliance on Rule 3A, the rule permitting the court to relieve against non-compliance, holding, on the authority of the Federal Court in Duli Yang Amat Mulia Tunku Ibrahim Ismail v Datuk Captain Hamzah Mohd Noor, that Rule 3A is not a panacea for non-compliance and that if it were invoked whenever a party failed to comply with any provision, the whole body of rules would be rendered useless. The court accordingly allowed the respondent's motion and struck out the record and notice of appeal with costs of RM5,000. The judgment is instructive on the mandatory content of a record of appeal and the limits of relief against non-compliance under Rule 3A.